Does your church follow these new rules for successful ministry?

[quote author=Tarheel Baptist]You prove my point....when the plain sense makes sense, seek no other sense.
Its obvious from the context of John 6, Jesus isn't talking about cannibalism.....DUH!

You have the inconsistent position in this debate....[/quote]

Then do please tell me...

...why was His audience so confused?
 
rsc2a said:
[quote author=Tarheel Baptist]You prove my point....when the plain sense makes sense, seek no other sense.
Its obvious from the context of John 6, Jesus isn't talking about cannibalism.....DUH!

You have the inconsistent position in this debate....
Click to expand...

Then do please tell me...

...why was His audience so confused?
[/quote]

That's obvious to someone who has a proper hermeneutic.

In Matthew 13, the disciples asked Christ why He taught in parables...He answered lest they, the multitude, understand.
John 6 ....Jesus feeds the 5000, then tells them they only come for the loaves and fishes.
Right after, in Mark, Scripture says he disciples didn't understand after that miracle because their hearts were hard.
Then He offers them a message that very few, at that point could or would understand, on purpose.
He thins the crowd and asks the disciples will you also go away?


A good hermeneutic and an understanding of systematic theology can be your friend and keep you from being inconsistent!
 
So you are rejecting the "plain sense" of Scripture for this particular passage?

Interesting...  ;)
 
rsc2a said:
So you are rejecting the "plain sense" of Scripture for this particular passage?

Interesting...  ;)
Click to expand...

No, I'm seeking other sense....based on the context and the rest of scripture.

Interesting that you don't understand that.....
 
Tarheel Baptist said:
rsc2a said:
So you are rejecting the "plain sense" of Scripture for this particular passage?

Interesting...  ;)
Click to expand...

No, I'm seeking other sense....based on the context and the rest of scripture.
Click to expand...

This Scripture?

Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord. (1 Corinthians 11:27 ESV)

I mean we all know how Paul answered when asked why he spoke in parables....oh wait....

[quote author=Tarheel Baptist]Interesting that you don't understand that.....[/quote]

I do understand. I understand that you are rejecting your own arguments as it suits your personal theology. You're inconsistent in how you apply your hermeneutic principles based on your presupposed convictions (i.e. eisegesis vs exegesis).

- You're hardline on the "plain sense" of Genesis 1 & 2 (which again makes no sense since they clearly contradict each other) even when the context allows for, maybe even requires, a non-historical narrative understanding of, at least sections of, that account.
- You reject the "plain sense" of Jesus' words in this case even though there is a stronger case here for a "literal" understanding than in the creation stories based on "context and the rest of scripture". (FTR: I am not a transubstantiationist.)
 
rsc2a said:
Tarheel Baptist said:
rsc2a said:
So you are rejecting the "plain sense" of Scripture for this particular passage?

Interesting...  ;)
Click to expand...

No, I'm seeking other sense....based on the context and the rest of scripture.
Click to expand...

This Scripture?

Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord. (1 Corinthians 11:27 ESV)

I mean we all know how Paul answered when asked why he spoke in parables....oh wait....

[quote author=Tarheel Baptist]Interesting that you don't understand that.....
Click to expand...

I do understand. I understand that you are rejecting your own arguments as it suits your personal theology. You're inconsistent in how you apply your hermeneutic principles based on your presupposed convictions (i.e. eisegesis vs exegesis).

- You're hardline on the "plain sense" of Genesis 1 & 2 (which again makes no sense since they clearly contradict each other) even when the context allows for, maybe even requires, a non-historical narrative understanding of, at least sections of, that account.
- You reject the "plain sense" of Jesus' words in this case even though there is a stronger case here for a "literal" understanding than in the creation stories based on "context and the rest of scripture". (FTR: I am not a transubstantiationist.)
[/quote]

Paul was speaking, in context, plainly and no other sense is needed if one has any sense!  :)

Your twisting and contorting scripture to satisfy science and the culture makes you the inconsistent and superficial theologian!
 
[quote author=Tarheel Baptist]Paul was speaking, in context, plainly and no other sense is needed if one has any sense!  :)[/quote]

So Paul was a transubstantiationist?
 
rsc2a said:
[quote author=Tarheel Baptist]Paul was speaking, in context, plainly and no other sense is needed if one has any sense!  :)
Click to expand...
consubstantiation
So Paul was a transubstantiationist?
[/quote]

Paul wasn't even a believer in consubstantiation.....No more than Jesus was when He served the Last Supper!

When one has a poor hermeneutic and less than adequate knowledge of basic systematic theology he or she tends to be confused.....and you are the Poster Child for such confusion, if you really are this  misinformed!
 
Tarheel Baptist said:
rsc2a said:
[quote author=Tarheel Baptist]Paul was speaking, in context, plainly and no other sense is needed if one has any sense!  :)
Click to expand...
consubstantiation
So Paul was a transubstantiationist?
Click to expand...

Paul wasn't even a believer in consubstantiation.....No more than Jesus was when He served the Last Supper!

When one has a poor hermeneutic and less than adequate knowledge of basic systematic theology he or she tends to be confused.....and you are the Poster Child for such confusion, if you really are this  misinformed!
[/quote]

So Paul wasn't "speaking plainly" or are you rejecting the "plain meaning" of what he wrote?

(It would be easier if you would just acknowledge that the "plain meaning" isn't always the correct interpretation, especially when other factors provide evidence for an alternate, better, understanding.)
 
rsc2a said:
Tarheel Baptist said:
rsc2a said:
[quote author=Tarheel Baptist]Paul was speaking, in context, plainly and no other sense is needed if one has any sense!  :)
Click to expand...
consubstantiation
So Paul was a transubstantiationist?
Click to expand...

Paul wasn't even a believer in consubstantiation.....No more than Jesus was when He served the Last Supper!

When one has a poor hermeneutic and less than adequate knowledge of basic systematic theology he or she tends to be confused.....and you are the Poster Child for such confusion, if you really are this  misinformed!
Click to expand...

So Paul wasn't "speaking plainly" or are you rejecting the "plain meaning" of what he wrote?

(It would be easier if you would just acknowledge that the "plain meaning" isn't always the correct interpretation, especially when other factors provide evidence for an alternate, better, understanding.)
[/quote]

Paul was OBVIOUSLY comparing the Last Supper with the elements of the Lords Supper.....plainly and in context.

Frankly, I don't believe you're as stupid as you want to appear....
 
The only basis for spiritualizing the clear, plain teaching on the creation is to conform to so called science.....period.

There is no solid hermeneutic or theological basis for turning Genesis 1-11 into a scientific fairy tale!
 
Tarheel Baptist said:
rsc2a said:
Tarheel Baptist said:
rsc2a said:
Tarheel Baptist]Paul was speaking said:
The only basis for spiritualizing the clear, plain teaching on the creation is to conform to so called science.....period.
Click to expand...

That underlined part...that's a problem there.

[quote author=Tarheel Baptist]There is no solid hermeneutic or theological basis for turning Genesis 1-11 into a scientific fairy tale!
Click to expand...

At least if you believe the Bible is to be interpreted as literally as possible....

...except for those parts that we wouldn't agree with if we interpreted them as literally as possible...

...after all, why be consistent?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
rsc2a said:
Tarheel Baptist said:
rsc2a said:
Tarheel Baptist said:
rsc2a said:
Tarheel Baptist]Paul was speaking said:
The only basis for spiritualizing the clear, plain teaching on the creation is to conform to so called science.....period.
Click to expand...

That underlined part...that's a problem there.

[quote author=Tarheel Baptist]There is no solid hermeneutic or theological basis for turning Genesis 1-11 into a scientific fairy tale!
Click to expand...

At least if you believe the Bible is to be interpreted as literally as possible....

...except for those parts that we wouldn't agree with if we interpreted them as literally as possible...

...after all, why be consistent?
Click to expand...

OK.....maybe I was giving you too much credit.....
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
*sigh*

Let's try again:

Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord. (1 Corinthians 11:27 ESV)

Same question...

So Paul wasn't "speaking plainly" or are you rejecting the "plain meaning" of what he wrote?
 
rsc2a said:
*sigh*

Let's try again:

Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord. (1 Corinthians 11:27 ESV)

Same question...

So Paul wasn't "speaking plainly" or are you rejecting the "plain meaning" of what he wrote?
Click to expand...


You really should invest in a good commentary....or take a freshman course in hermeneutics.
 
Tarheel Baptist said:
rsc2a said:
*sigh*

Let's try again:

Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord. (1 Corinthians 11:27 ESV)

Same question...

So Paul wasn't "speaking plainly" or are you rejecting the "plain meaning" of what he wrote?
Click to expand...


You really should invest in a good commentary....or take a freshman course in hermeneutics.
Click to expand...

I'm good, thanks. Want to answer the question?
 
rsc2a said:
Tarheel Baptist said:
rsc2a said:
*sigh*

Let's try again:

Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord. (1 Corinthians 11:27 ESV)

Same question...

So Paul wasn't "speaking plainly" or are you rejecting the "plain meaning" of what he wrote?
Click to expand...


You really should invest in a good commentary....or take a freshman course in hermeneutics.
Click to expand...

I'm good, thanks. Want to answer the question?
Click to expand...

Is that the question about John, Corinthians, Genesis or about your lack of grammar skill?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top